Comparing Parliamentary and Presidential forms of government

The comparison of parliamentary and presidential systems throws up interesting aspects.

 Comparing Parliamentary and Presidential forms of government

---

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

---

• The story: We often hear many Indians rue the fact that the country has a Parliamentary form of government! They long for a "strong Presidential form", where quick action could be taken and nation run with a decisive method. But what exactly are the differences?
• Parliamentary System: Here, two executives operate: the nominal executive is the head of state (HoS) who is the President, while the real executive is the Prime Minister (PM), who is the head of government (HoG). The role of president or monarch is primarily ceremonial and the Prime Minister along with the cabinet wields effective power. Countries with such a system include Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom as well as Portugal. The Constitution of India provides for a parliamentary form of government, both at the Centre and in the States. The Articles 74 and 75 deal with the parliamentary system of government at the Union level and Articles 163 and 164 contain provisions with regard to the States. The political executive (i.e. government) is responsible to the legislature (i.e. Parliament) for its policies and acts.
• Presidential System: There is only one executive, the President. He is both head of state and that of the government. Nations like the USA, South Korea etc. The executive is not responsible to the legislature for its policies and acts, and is constitutionally independent of the legislature in respect of its term of office. He can appoint any person as part of his team, subject to some confirmation norms from the legislature, but they can act fairly independently unlike that in a Parliamentary system.
• Assessment of the Parliamentary System: There are some limitations -

1. Unqualified legislators (MPs and MLAs) - Many people rise in the power hierarchy without due qualification, and only with the ability to win elections. Thus, executive posts are privy to those who are electable rather than to those who are able. The PM has to appoint only those who have won elections (one bypass is available - the Rajya Sabha members whose elections are quite passive in many cases).
2. Lawmaking is defective - Many of the laws are drafted by the Executive and any scope fo parliamentary inputs is minimised. The ruling party simply issues a whip to its members in order to ensure unimpeded passage of a bill. The defiance of a whip may attract disqualification, so MPs blindly vote as their party directs. The legislature no longer is distinct from the executive, which is needed to ensure control.
3. Coalitions can make things unstable - If a party does not get majority in the Lok Sabha, it has to make various compromises to form the government. That may or may not be fruitful. At the same time, a party with majority on its own can simply push any law, with brute force. It can turn the "majority" into "majoritarianism".

• Assessment of the Presidential System: There are some limitations -

1. Lack of cooperation - A weakness of the system is its failure to ensure the co-operation between law-makers and administrators. Frequent conflicts between the legislature and the executive may lead to deadlocks. If the party of the President loses majority in the Parliament (e.g. the Congress in USA), the President becomes a lame duck one.
2. Getting autocratic - A presidential system centralises power in one individual unlike the parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is the first among equals (at least theoretically!). The surrender to the authority of one individual, as in the presidential system, is dangerous for democracy.
3. Separation of Powers - If the legislature is dominated by the same party to which the President belongs, he may prevent any move from the legislature that constrains his power.

• Benefits of a Parliamentary System: There are many -

1. Diverse representation - By looking at the diversity and the number of parties from different states, India needs a diverse cabinet to fulfill the aspirations of millions. The parliamentary system ensures the regional representations by selecting candidates from different parts of India.
2. Basic Structure of Constitution - A Parliamentary system is part of the "basic structure of the Constitution", as enunciated by the Supreme Court in 1970s. Altering the parliament system would face legal hurdles.
3. Prevents authoritarianism - Since the executive is responsible to the legislature, and can vote it out in a motion of no confidence, there is little scope for authoritarianism (at least in theory!). Unlike the presidential system, power is not concentrated in one hand, rather in a group of individuals (Council of Ministers). But if the PM is too strong, this is easily upended.
4. Coordination - Since the executive is a part of the legislature, and generally the majority of the legislature support the government, it is easier to pass laws and implement them.

• Benefits of the Presidential System: There are many -

1. Stable Executive - It establishes a stable executive which does not depend upon the fluctuating will of the legislature especially in case of coalition governments. The term is fixed from day one. Some opine that a system of directly elected chief executives at all levels – panchayat chiefs, town mayors, Chief Ministers (or Governors) and a national President – elected for a fixed term of office, invulnerable to the whims of the legislature, and with clearly defined authority in their respective domains – would permit India to deal more efficiently with its critical economic and social challenges.
2. Ability over electability - Cabinet posts would not be limited to those who are electable rather than those who are able, as the President can appoint anyone as secretaries (equivalent to minister). But this can be misused also, as was clearly visible in the choice of many in President Trump's cabinet in USA (some had to leave).
3. Checks and Balances - The system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. This allows each structure to monitor and check the other, hence preventing the abuse of power. In a majority-govt parliamentary system, this can actually break down.
4. Citizens' role - At the end of a fixed period of time, the public would be able to judge the individual’s performance, rather than on political skill at keeping a government in office.

• Summary: India needs a system of government where leaders can focus on governance rather than on staying in power. The present parliamentary system has been tried and tested for nearly 70 years. There is a need to reform the electoral processes to make democracy more robust. The debate should be on various loopholes in electoral processes i.e from limiting expenditure of political parties and deciding the ceiling on the expenditure, to holding simultaneous elections, declaring the results for a combination of booths instead of constituencies, etc. And then, of course, is the entirely opaque system of electoral bonds that needs to be junked completely.
• EXAM QUESTIONS: (1) Compare and contrast the Presidential and Parliamentary forms of governments. Which one is better suited for India? Explain. (2) How can Indian system ensure a check on a majoritarian executive, which is bent on not following established protocols of Parliament? Explain.

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

#Parliamentary #Presidential #Formsofgovernment #PM #President

Join UPSC Self Prep course | Online Course (PT Gurukul)  | Covid Special Course | Join PT courses

* Content sourced from free internet sources (publications, PIB site, international sites, etc.). Take your own subscriptions. Copyrights acknowledged.